Kill dogs and raise taxes...good old Monroe.

Doesn't the town enjoy the dog licensing revenue? That's like $10K in fees a year!

Interesting, if you read the articles prior on this subject matter, the owner of this "kennel", has had YEARS to comply with the regulations and prior court orders. Obviously he has chosen to ignore the process, do what he wanted to do, and now the courts are enforcing the regulation on behalf of the Town and the taxpaying neighbors. How sad he uses the animlas as an excuse to say your TOWN is killing these animals. Why did he not follow the riules for several past years, and only house the number of dogs he is legally allowed to have. Saying he is "grandfathered-in" to ignore local and state law, basically says he thinks he is above the laws that everyone else must follow in the State of CT.

Also interesting, he presents himself as the CT SPCA, when actually he is not legally an office of that entity. Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors, and now blaming your Town for his own self-created problems. It is really sad that the animals have to suffer for this individual's poor business practices. Saving animals is a wonderful thing, but that does not let one ignore the State and local laws.

It doesn't sound like YOUR TOWN ever allowed it, hence you ended up in court with this guy. It does not mean he still will not operate illegally on his property! No one sais anything about killing animals, that is simply wrong. But for this property owner to put the animals in a situation where he has been under a court order is almost sealing their fate. Also, who says ALL these animals are going to be put down??? That is just the propaganda of this one violater, because he is angry the COURT is making him follow the rules. If the COURT felt otherwise, they would have ruled differnetly. And P.S.--this man clearly states he made this agreement previously with the Court and YOUR TOWN. Is it that hard to figure this out?!

pardon..typo.."says"

If April 30 rolls around and there are more than 29 dogs, what happens? My problem is imposing a deadline on the shelter. Don't rush adoptions to unqualified candidates and don't euthanize the animals.

And from experience, the organization is overrun. The inside of the house is terrible. The shelter's organization is terrible. I filled out an application for multiple animals and on a separate occasion, inquired about an adoption event they were advertising...never heard a word from them. I don't doubt their dedication, but know when to say when.

It is doubtful that the Courts would order any euthanization of animals. The penalty would be against the property owner as possibly a contempt of court order. This man is saying that the animals will be killed by April 30. The Courts would not do that. He will face penalties and possibly a contempt of court order for not following the judge's directions, AGAIN, by the sounds of the information in the article. It sounds like he is crying foul to get people to feel sympathy for him, when actually the sympathy should only be for the animals. Clearly this individual has no idea on how to manage a proper shelter for homeless animals from what is being posted. His original intentions may have been proper, but it appears that he chose to ignore the law.

I want to tell you about the difference Acker's group made to just one dog. She was a rescue who was terrified of humans. They loved her for years, I don't know how many, but she came to them as a young dog, and when I met her she was an adult. They provided food, shelter, and attention to her. When I met her, she was still so shy that she hid behind the shelter workers rather than come out and see me. This was not a highly adoptable dog. My heart broke for her, and of course, I took her home. It was not easy, but in time she made friends with both other dogs and eventually HUMANS! when I got her home. She's now a wonderful dog, and I am so blessed to have her.

I have no doubt this dog would have been euthanized if she was any place other than with Acker's group. And what a waste that would have been. She is a wonderful dog who has enriched my life.

Thank you to Fred, and all of the kind and loving folks at the Monroe SPCA. "Tammy" and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

I have adopted 2 dogs from here, and if I could adopt more, I would.

Christine E., I think you need the reality check. You obviously don't know the court sytem or have read the law relating to these types of issues. Land Courts do not rule to kill animals. What reality do you live in, possibly your own?? Check your facts and inform yourself before making unfounded statements. This issue here is not about ANIMALS breaking the laws of CT, it is about a HUMAN, who is supposed to have higher intelligence than an animal and understand what laws must be followed as ordered by the Courts for the benefit of ALL, not a few. From the statements of both parties in the articles, this individual was well aware he was pushing the envelope. HE won't suffer, the animals will! That is the shame. Hello!! Try helping a few animals properly, rather than breaking the laws of CT and endangering many animals! He has a responsibility as a member of society. Your Town is not out in the wild west somewhere. Furthermore, what about all the others in the area around him that pay their taxes in YOUR TOWN, are their rights not important under the law either?? Sounds pretty lopsided to me. Again, sad part is helpless animals will pay the price for one person's lack of proper judgement.

We adopted a dog about 6 years ago from Fred--and we adore our dog. However, I will say that Fred's adoption fee has been quite high, and some folks might balk at it. I would suggest for the sake of the dogs, he considers lowering the fee or even waiving it to get these dogs a home in lieu of being euthanize. Afterall, it's all about saving the dogs.

I think the main concern is this shelter won't euthanize these dogs while other shelters might. The courts ordering the animals to be surrendered to other shelters would increase the chance of euthanasia.

Where have these dogs come from are any of them rescued from the streets of Monroe? If so those owners should be held somewhat accountable in this.

OK, here’s the reality check from an SPCA volunteer. All documentation is available, just call the SPCA.
1) The Town of Monroe gave permission to the SPCA in writing to operate a commercial kennel after a written inquiry to zoning and animal control. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
2) The Town of Monroe FAILED to tell the SPCA that they had spent more than 10 years trying to shut down the prior operator of the kennel. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
3) Monroe officials state in their own internal documents that “zoning messed up in granting the kennel license”. The SPCA didn’t find out about prior issues until after purchasing the property. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
4) Monroe granted a kennel license but in order to cover their tracks, issued hundreds of nuisance barking summonses, all eventually dismissed by the court. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
5) The Town of Monroe seized 11 dogs held them for 9 months without allowing them out of the kennel to be walked. Court ordered them returned. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
6) Monroe goes to zoning and was told SPCA was legal and consistent with the prior legal use.
7) Monroe knows they can’t put us out of business, so they decide to make it impossible to operate. Effectively zoning us out of business. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).

8) Monroe doesn’t like the result from zoning and goes back to zoning with a fixed result, a 29 dog limit. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
9) Imagine a justice system where when one is vindicated and the other party can go back to court for do-overs until they get the result they are looking for. It’s called double jeopardy and is illegal but not in the world of zoning. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
10) Over 400 Monroe adopters, 3 neighbor adopters but only 2 active complainants that play golf and give money to First Selectman Steve Vavrek.
11) Vavrek is an SPCA adopter, says it was a good experience and a great dog (in front of witnesses). He then proceeds to lie and say that things were different and numbers were lower since he adopted. False! (Documentation available at the (SPCA).

12) AOL’s Bitar viewed all evidence but is clearly in the pocket of town officials. He knowingly uses inaccurate, horrible, mean spirited statements like “Pet Shop”. Bill what kind of “Pet Shop” rescues and rehabilitates cruelty cases (over 200)? Bill what kind of “Pet Shop” rescues blind dogs (over 100 but 2 in the last 90 days) amputees (over 30 but 1 in the last 90 days)? Bill what kind of “Pet Shop” rescues dogs with cancer and provides lifesaving surgeries (he’s here!). Bill, you know all this but you’re more interested in protecting corrupt town officials so you can protect your news sources and keep your job. Bill, you know all these things but you are either afraid or you just refuse report it . Well it’s coming out with you or without you. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
13) Vavrek wants to raise taxes 3.96% but hires outside law firm Pullman & Comley to sue SPCA. Uses $20,000.00 (Freedom of Information) and counting of taxpayer money to help his 2 pals, each of whom bought a home next to a kennel. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
14) Despite Freedom of Information request, Vavrek has failed to release taxpayer money paid to his buddy Town Attorney John a/k/a Jack Fracassini. Some estimates are as high as $40,000.00 and counting. How many teachers could be hired with that money? Do we as taxpayers want our elected officials funneling tax dollars to their friends?

15) New FOI request for taxpayer money paid to former Town Attorney Frederick Martin. Some estimates are as high as $76,000.00.
16) This is plundering and makes us want to know what else Vavrek is hiding from the taxpayers. We see that he never announced or told the people of Monroe about hiring an outside law firm, he never announced using tax dollars to fund his lawyer pals to sue.
17) Please, show us one thing that Vavrek has done to help animals rather than put them in jeopardy. Even high priced ($350 an hour) outside law firm, Pullman & Comley, tried to, and failed to, ban adoptions. (Documentation available at the (SPCA).
18) After April 30th 2012, if the SPCA is not able to find homes for the less adoptable dogs remaining, the Town has the following options: 1) Fines of $250 a day. 2) Attorneys fees. 3) Arrest 4)Seizure of animals.
19) Do not doubt for one minute that if they seize the SPCA’s less adoptable animals, it would result in their death. Just ask Monroe Animal Control what would happen if they were ordered to seize the dogs. We do not believe that Monroe Animal Control would take our dogs unless ordered to by Chief Salvatore or First Selectman Vavrek. We do believe that they would avail themselves of the kill option.

Hmmm...Ms. Blakely, your facts are clearly biased to the violator, and your opinions are obviously politically slanted. BY the way, your facts, many though you have listed, do not correspond with the facts printed in several news locations, not just this one. Obviously, you are a supporter of the individual breaking the law, and therefore, your opinion is biased. Only the violater has the accurate, records?? That's a laugh, I would think the Courts have the accurate information.